Linux-Advocacy Digest #144, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Does Code Decay ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Nick Condon)
Re: How does this look? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Interesting article ("David Brown")
Re: Good article ("David Brown")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Boris Dynin")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Peformance Test ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Help with LILO ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux reference distro ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How does this look? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:23:51 GMT
Giuliano;
I think it would be a good idea to just ignore Mike's post. I know
you're probably anxious to knock down the fabrications and expose the
mockery of logic which his pretend arguments contain, but to be honest,
I think we need to start ignoring the trolls in alt.destroy.microsoft.
I would consider it a personal favor if you'd "take one for the team"
here, and just skip over Mike's subsequent harping pretending he made a
point.
Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:16:07
GMT;
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >
>> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Give me a break. You can't honestly sit there and tell me they're
>> > > > just "calling it as they see it". It's not professional at all,
>> > > > let alone tasteful. It's like a bunch of high-school adolescents
>wrote
>> > > > the documentation. Not unlike the code, though. I guess it all makes
>> > > > sense.
>> > >
>> > > If you mean the code they're commenting, you're right. Adolescent
>style
>> > > code deserves adolescent-style irony. You can't discuss Microsoft
>> > > implementation as if it were a professional thing. It isn't.
>> >
>> > First, we can discuss Microsoft implementations any way we se fit -- you
>and
>> > the rest of the Linux loonies have no say in what we do at all.
>>
>> Well, calling Linux users "Linux loonies" is professional? You're
>> starting with the wrong feet, I'm afraid.
>> Losing your temper means that you've been hit in a sore point.
>
>My temper was not lost, it's right here :-) The sore points are that the
>poster termed Microsoft code "adolescent" when it's more than likely they've
>neer seen any and that they presumed to tell the group that it's posters
>cannot discuss something any way they see fit.
>
>> However my commentary wasn't on what you're permitted or not to do. It
>> was on what common sense suggests.
>
>Expound please on what "common sense" has to do with the fact that you don't
>like code you've never seen. That sounds like OS bigotry to me and common
>sense tells me to counter it so it does not appear to be the de facto truth.
>
>> You may go on discussing Microsoft implementation as if it were
>> professional as long as you like, but you'll make a fool of yourself.
>
>Microsoft is by definition "professionally" created. Perhaps you should
>pick a different adjective.
>>
>> > Commenting
>> > code with "adolescent ironies" is decidedly poor coding practice --
>perhaps
>> > they could have diverted those energies towards documenting their code
>> > rather than commenting on completely unrelated code that they've never
>even
>> > seen before.
>>
>> When you're dealing with interoperability problems, and IP packets sent
>> across a network are intended to be received, retransmitted, filtered,
>> and used by anybody else, you MUST deal with unrelated code. That's the
>> professional way to face networking. If you fail to do so, and MS
>> usually fails to do so, you are failing in your design.
>
>You failed to counter my point in any way deciding instead to change the
>subject. The linux coders could have produced better code by spending the
>time they wasted Microsoft bashing doing something productive like actually
>documenting the code they were working on.
>
>When you assert things like "Microsoft usually fails to...", you need to
>cite some neutral sources.
>
>> > Microsoft's implementations are by definition
>> > "professional" -- that's what they do for a living. Linux
>implementations
>> > are by definition "amateur" as they are done as a pastime rather than as
>a
>> > profession.
>>
>> Airplanes are by definition flying machines. They're intended to fly. An
>> airplane model which crashes frequently is usually grounded until the
>> reason is discovered and fixed. Being a flying machine "by definition"
>> doesn't imply that it doesn't crash. Until it's fixed it doesn't deserve
>> the "flying machine" attribute.
>>
>> A guy who comes and repairs your bath tub may get paid as a
>> professional, but if the bath tub starts leaking as soon as he's left,
>> you won't call him a "professional plumber". And if the boy next door,
>> you call for help, tells you "That brain-damaged plumber of yours didn't
>> grease where needed" and fixes the problem, what shall you do? Discuss
>> about the "adolescent irony" or about the "unprofessional plumber"?
>>
>> Microsoft implementations are done according professional rules as far
>> as programmer salaries go, but not as far as good programming practices
>> go, therefore they do not deserve the "professional" appellation.
>
>You have no idea what the programming practices are at Microsoft any you've
>never seen the code so you have not grounds to judge.
>
>> > There are maybe a hundred or so folks that actually get paid to
>> > code linux (the kernel) and all the varied programs included in all the
>> > distros combined. Hell, Torvalds doesn't even get paid to do the
>kernel --
>> > he gets paid to write microcode for the Transmeta chips and to write the
>> > currently CLOSED SOURCE Mobile Linux.
>> >
>>
>> Torvalds being paid or not, being open or closed source or not doesn't
>> make less unprofessional and crappy the Microsoft implementation of the
>> TOS bits in the IP packets.
>
>Linux doesn't do TOS right either in some cases:
>http://security-archive.merton.ox.ac.uk/bugtraq-200010/0237.html
>
>> Which, don't forget, was the point.
>
>How could I forget? I never knew :-) I came into this to rebut your
>assertions that Microsoft implementations are not "professional". I've
>established that they are by definition.
>
>> Either
>> you may prove that Microsoft Implementation is good, that violating a
>> standard produces a clear improvement on network performance, or you're
>> just raising smoke to hide Microsoft incompetence.
>
>Or I could prove that Linux is broke too :-)
>http://security-archive.merton.ox.ac.uk/bugtraq-200010/0237.html
>
>> > > Well if you're so proud of MSDN superb documentation, can you point me
>> > > where it is clearly specified that a scrolling window
>> > > will fill up until all available memory has been used and then freeze
>> > > the system (making even the Task Manager unavailable) if you attempt
>to
>> > > scroll it?
>> >
>> > Scrolling window? Using those terms precisely would yeild a window with
>a
>> > scrollbar (perhaps two!) and no innate ability to have any content other
>> > than what can be drawn on it's device context. It's up to your
>> > implementation to draw the particular segment of your content as
>appropriate
>> > for the position of the scrollbar thumb and window size. If you could
>> > "until all available memory has been used" then you are doing two things
>> > wrong -- you've turned off virtual memory and your implementation caches
>> > everything in memory regardless of it's size instead of implementing a
>spool
>> > or diff file or using memory mapped files. Perhaps a call to
>> > GlobalMemoryStatusEx could be used to determine the right amount of
>cache
>> > :-) You also didn't specify what OS this is either, nor what allocation
>> > mechanism your implementation is using -- new/delete, malloc/free or the
>> > heap functions. In fact you've said nothing to make anyone who has done
>any
>> > serious Windows programming believe a word you've said let alone be able
>to
>> > blame the OS for your ineptitude.
>>
>> Good attempt to intimidate me, but you failed once more, and quite
>> badly.
>
>I think your response and backpeddling prove otherwise!
>
>> The ineptitude you're speaking of is that of an MS application.
>
>Cite the source.
>
>> Just a situation where I was called for an auditing about a multimillion
>> project which was failing because of the crappiness of Microsoft
>> Software.
>
>Crappiness :-) Was that what you wrote in your audit report?
>
>> Five Windows PC in the less critical part of a system, were
>> the cause.
>
>How?
>
>> The OS involved was NT, service pack 4. As you appear to be
>> interested, I'll collect the data and give you all the details. The
>> story is a couple of years old, service pack 5 had just appeared when
>> the auditing was completed, so you may place it in the right time frame.
>
>Why does the time frame have anything to do with it? The window scroll
>semantics I explained have been around since Windows 3.0. I know how easy
>it is to "blame MS" -- they don't hate you for it. It just goes with the
>territory of being the top dog.
>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:23:52 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <cmGh6.306$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>I did answer it in another post, this response was to his idiotic
>>>impatience.
>>>
>>>Stop butting in when you don't know what's going on.
>>>
>>
>>Is EF still not answering the basic question about what .net is?
>>
>>Well, Chad Myer's knows. He's not a dumb ass appearently.
>>Perhaps we should just fight with somebody who know's his head
>>from his ass, like Chad Myers.
>>
>>Maybe Chad is smarter than you are Erik....
>>
>>
> Neither one is particularly smart but Chad seems to have a lot more
> M$ propaganda to spew forth.
>
> Perhaps there are different levels to make a Sock Puppet hierarchy ?
No, its just a function of their luck in stumbling on opportunities;
I've seen Erik post bits of pseudo-intelligence that would frankly put
Chad to shame, and Chad isn't even the smart one.
Erik is definitely smarter than Chad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:36:27 GMT
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:39:01 -0800...
> ...and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >....and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >[plutonium fission bomb]
> > >> You don't even need that... We're talking about something the size
of
> > >> a softball. You can merely make a sphere with a cylinder hollowed
out
> > >> of it...and a matching cylinder which drops (by gravity) into the
> > >> hollowed-out space. Then make a time-delay device that gives you a
> > >> two-hour delay.
> > >
> > >ROTFLMAO.
> > >
> > >You think that letting a piece of plutonium drop into a subcritical
> > >mass *by gravity* will give you an explosive chain reaction? Pretty
> > >naive.
> > >
>
> > yeah, trying this with plutonium will simply result in a fizzle, the
> > reaction will ramp up slowly enough that the heat produced will
> > disperse the plutonium, thus dropping it below critical mass. You
> > need the pellet of Pu to to go in the cavity at a great rate of
> > speed.
>
> Exactly. The biggest problem the Manhattan Project had was rigging the
> conventional explosives and the rest of the device correctly to
> actually start an explosive chain reaction.
>
> Calculating the layout of the triggering explosives was the main
> purpose of the Project's computers, AFAIK, as it was one of the things
> that were too difficult to be solved on slide rules in a reasonable
> time ;)
Especially when you consider the problems Seth Neddermeyer went through to
create a perfect spherical implosion.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 12 Feb 2001 08:41:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J Sloan) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> Well, logical deduction, really. Linux OS sales remain fairly
>> stagnant, growing, but at very small rates.
>
>I'd call it explosive.
>
>> OEMs have only token
>> support for Linux, if at all.
>
>So, let's get this straight - Oracle, IBM, Dell, etc don't count?
Everyone except Microsoft, in fact. Even Sun has a Linux offering now.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How does this look?
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:49:38 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tim wrote:
>
> > I am planning on building a Linux machine using the Redhat 7
> > distribution.
> > How does this hardware look? Do you think I will have any problems?
> > I.E. with installation or most importantly stability?
> >
> > Redhat Linux 7.0
> > Abit VP6
>
> Don't know about that mobo one way or the other.
>
> I stick to ASUS, never have any problems.
I own both ASUS and ABit motherboards and they both work equally well.
>
> >
> > 2 x PIII 700E (I am not overclocking this, so would 700EBs be better?)
> > 128MB PC133 RAM
> > IBM Deskstar 75GXP 30GB HD
> > ELSA GeForce II MX 32MB AGP
> > Soundblaster 128 PCI
> > Toshiba 48x IDE CDRom
> > Linksys NIC
>
> not sure about this, there are many models of linksys -
> I like the cheap realtek 8139 10/100s, or intel eepro100.
The LinkSys is comperable to the realtek. They work very well for
inexpensive cards. Someone posted here, previously, that they have a habit
of changing chipsets that may cause problems, though.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:20:48 +0100
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:08:42
>>IBM has a solid record of turning out brilliant technology and hopeless
>>marketing. [...]
>
>This oft-repeated bit of nonsense is so vapid as to be tiresome. IBM
>has a mixed record, as all business do, of both technology and
>'marketing'.
Fair enough - they have a bit of mixed record, but it is swayed in that
direction (unlike certain other companies, which are swayed heavily in the
other direction).
>The obvious flaw in this kind of second-guessing is the
>assumption that whether a technology is worth the price is solely a
>measure of how good the advertising is.
>
>The failure of OS/2 is entirely and completely explained by Microsoft's
>use of their illegal monopoly power to ensure it failed. This said, IBM
>made almost a billion dollars on it last year.
There is no doubt that MS pushed IBM very hard (I guess it was illegal, but
I really can't say - certainly immoral, unethical, and bad for everyone
except MS). Most importantly, IIRC, they threatened to drop IBM's volume
discount on Windows (Win311 at the time) if they did not drop OS/2.
However, IBM's response should have been to pre-install OS/2 on machines
instead - the few users who really wanted Win311 instead of OS/2 could pay a
little extra for it. IBM could have stood against MS, and we would be in a
rather different position now. But they judged the market for OS/2 to be
too small to make take on MS - and that is only because the market was
happier to wait an extra year or so for the much inferior Win95, rather than
buy OS/2 Warp that was available at the time. Whether that is IBM's
terrible marketing, or MS's excellent marketing, I don't know.
That IBM still makes huge profits from the OS/2 market, despite being almost
totally silent about it, is a testiment to how good an OS it is.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good article
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:29:47 +0100
J Sloan wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>David Brown wrote:
>
>> I have had no problems running Apache, PHP and MySQL under NT 4.0. It is
>> only a demo system at the moment, and I cannot comment on performance. I
>> even run the same setup under Win98 (it was all I had at the time). I
got
>> everything up and running very quickly. I have not tried IIS - it never
>> actually occured to me to use anything but Apache as the server.
>
>Just curious, if it never occurred to you to use anything
>but apache, and you are also using php and mysql, why
>the bizzare choice of OS?
>
>Imean, surely apache, php and mysql have a much
>greater affinity for Unix, so why the extra cost and
>hassle for the windows pc license?
>
It's just temporary - I run NT workstation for my main work, so I had to
prototype on that, and the only other machine lying around that was free for
a demo server runs Win98 (it has a couple of programs on it that won't run
under NT). In other words, the OS was already choosen, but I could pick the
server apps of my choice. Later, when I have time, I will install Linux on
some machine around here and move the system over to that - I will certainly
do that before going live. Part of the choice of server apps was to make it
easy to move OS's at a later date - all three (Apache, Php and mySql) are
strongly cross-platform tools.
------------------------------
From: "Boris Dynin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:36:03 -0800
> There is no question that linux is a superior paradigm for the end user
> who is a professional developer or engineer. Linux *IS* more stable
> than windows. You *CAN* integrate your own applications into the
> system. The tools *ARE* better, and this *WILL* make you more
> productive.
>
> Compared to what I have now, my windows pc was a toy.
I'm a developer. Never used Linux in my life (and not going to). I got Sun
workstation on my desk (and 5 NT/W2k PCs). I'm tremendously more productive
on Windows than on Sun. MS development tools are the best of breed in my
opinion (I'm talking about Visual Studio 6); I'm a C++ programmer. Visual
C++ IDE is light years ahead of vi, emacs, gdb. As for Unix utilities: awk,
perl, etc. - there are Windows versions which I use all the time (awk).
Boris
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:33:21 +0100
In article <ZBGh6.341$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a869c1e$0$20238@reader3...
>> For the record,
>>
>> I refer to the sentences prohibiting modification of the boot
>> sequence, I think there's a whole bit of prohibition on
>> including dual-boot altOS's a little further on, but you get
>> my drift.
>
> No, you don't understand what text is referring to. The
> restrictions were put into place to prevent OEM's from
> inserting their own startup programs and shells into the
> windows boot sequence, which begins at the "Starting
> Windows..." message. There is nothing in the FoF that refer to
> dual boots or prohibiting multiple OS's. Period.
>
>
>
Erik,
1. The minute I posted this excerpt from the Findings of Fact, I
realized it was not the most appropriate. I still conted that it
at least shows the extremely restrictive licensing policies
dictated by Microsoft to OEMs, but you are right it is not 100%
relevant to the topic at hand. Unfortunately, I also found a
weakness in Pan the hard way: it does not allow me to retract
posts.
2. Disregarding this, you obviously relied on me to provide you
with correct information, instead of reading the FoF yourself.
If you had, you might have found, a few pages before the snippet
I posted, the story of how a *major* OEM reseller was pressured
by Microsoft, using the OEM license as a weapon, into not
shipping it's own alternative OS. Hint: the major OEM reseller
is IBM, look it up yourself. While MS does not prohibit OEMs
from shipping altOSs, they can make life difficult for any OEM
that does, and given that DELL, Compaq, and IBMs PC division
operate in high-volume, low-margin markets, any threat of
raising costs will cut directly into their profits.
So apologies for the first (slightly incorrect) post, but I
still stand by my original contention, that MS licensing
practices *effectively* prohibit OEMs from shipping anything but
windows. Now you give me a link to prove that it isn't so.
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:36:36 +0100
In article <sxGh6.330$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a869982$0$23109@reader4...
>> Erik,
>>
>> I see you are arguing semantics with Max again, while
>> completely ignoring my post giving you proof of Microsofts OEM
>> licensing practices. Honestly, your debating style breaks so
>> many laws of rhetoric, that arguing with you is just not fun
>> anymore, you're just too easy a target.
>
> You should read all the messages in a thread before making
> comments like this. It only makes you look impatient and
> stupid.
>
>
>
>
Apologies for this, my ISP is a bit slow in delivering the news.
I did see this appearing after I posted, but Pan does not allow
me to retract posts (at least I can't find the option anywhere),
otherwise I would have retracted this.
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:26:41 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Who cares? Using NT for embedded applications, particularly ones built
> > around low-end hardware and without a GUI, is silly. You get nothing
> > for your trouble compared with less costly solutions.
>
> We did indeed get something for our trouble. We didn't have to rewrite a
> million lines of our application. The cost savings in that far outweigh the
> added cost of the OS, particularly when we only less than 1000 CNC machines
> a year.
>
You actually don't have to rewrite a million lines of anyting under
linux. This is a misconception peddled by the clueless. NT and its
variants have no cost saving in this event, as Linux and Sendmail both
compile fine for a 486. Windows does not give you such options.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Help with LILO
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:27:25 +0000
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> : Hi, i recently bought SuSE Linux 7.0 and i can't install it. I already
> : have Win98 and i want to be able to do dual boot. I created a Linux
> : primary partition (/) from cylinder 650 to 1225 but it gives me the
> : message that the partition won't be able to boot by itself or something
> : like that. What should i do? Should i install Lilo at MBR or what?
> : My e-mail is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> : Thanx.
>
> Use Loadlin instead.
Loadlin isn't as quick or easy as LILO
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux reference distro
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:29:35 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:966j1l$8s1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:3a868e12$0$20218@reader3...
> > >> I work in financials, and as a Linux user (and onetime RH6.2
> > >> user) I have been tracking RH on this very subject. For one,
> > >> they just posted earnings well above expectations, and they've
> > >> set their target for profitability as sometime this year (don't
> > >> have the exact date here, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
> >
> > > Isn't it amazing that Red Hat's financials have suddenly picked up since
> > > they decided to start releasing broken versions of their OS (RH 7) that
> > > generate lots and lots of support incidents?
> >
> > You dont have the smallest idea of how many report incidents microsoft
> > deals with every day.
>
> Oh, I do. But MS is actively trying to reduce the number of incidents, Red
> Hat seems to be trying to increase them (for obvious reasons, since they
> make money on support calls, and this is where most of their revenue comes
> from).
>
> That wasn't a commentary on number of support calls, it was a commentary on
> what I view to be Red Hat's policy to generate them.
Then MS are failing. If tey want to "actively reduce" the number of
support calls, they should seel stuff that works!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How does this look?
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:40:09 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> TsTech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > as long as you're not using ATA100, you should be fine.
>
> Why? I have two drives running on an ATA/100 controller and
> they work just fine.
>
> > I wonder about your sound though...
>
> My soundblaster works well.
>
> -----.
Creative Labs produce Linux drivers for the SoundBlaster cards, so that
should be fine
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
